The most illustrious of the “archaeological skulls” is
the Mitchell-Hedges skull, an almost perfect copy of a
human skull. It consists of two parts, namely the skull
itself and a separate jawbone, which thus allows for
movement, as if the head is speaking. The skull was
apparently found in the ruins of Lubantuum, in Belize in
1927, by Anna Mitchell-Hedges, on her 17th birthday.
Lubantuum is not the most famous of Mayan ruins, if only
because it sits of the common tourist route. Its name
means “Place of the fallen stones” and its location was
first reported to the British Colonial Authority at the
end of the 19th century. In 1903, the governor of
British Honduras instructed Dr. Thomas Gann to survey
the site. The conclusion was that Lubantuum had been a
major site within the Mayan Empire. In 1915, Harvard
University Professor R. Merwin investigated the site,
following in Gann’s footsteps. It seems, however, that
he was more thorough, as he uncovered three memorial
stones, showing men playing the ballgame. He was also
able to uncover the court in which the ballgame was
played.
Gann returned to the area in 1927, accompanied by F.A.
“Mike” Mitchell-Hedges, his daughter Anna, and Lady
Richardson-Brown, his companion and financier.
Mitchell-Hedges was a famous adventurer, born in 1882,
who had left for America when he was only 17 years old.
He made a living by playing cards and with the money he
had earned, he travelled to Mexico, where he was taken
prisoner by the famous Pancho Villa – they would become
good friends afterwards. Mitchell-Hedges then left for
Honduras and Jamaica, to satisfy his desire to explore.
He dived along the coasts of the islands and recovered
artefacts which convinced him that an ancient
civilisation had been present in the area. He identified
it as Atlantis, which should not come as a surprise as
he was a theosophist and lover of mysteries – as well as
secret societies.
But when he was in Lubantuum, the account goes that he
first found the top part of the crystal skull, in what
seemed to be an altar. Three months later, the jawbone
was discovered nearby.
One
story has it that Mitchell-Hedges had discovered the
skull some time before its official discovery, but had
hidden it, so that Anna could find it on her 17th
birthday. Other accounts argue that Anna did not find
the skull at all… Another account relates that the local
population became close to hysterical when the skull was
shown to them. Alice Bryant and Phyllis Glade, in The
Message of the Crystal Skull, report that the local
Mayan people began to dance, while others worshipped it
as a relic. In no time, an altar was erected on which
the skull was placed. Allegedly – once again – the local
workforce stopped all further excavations for a period
of three days for feasting. Apparently, the situation
left Mitchell-Hedges confused, not knowing how to behave
and what to do. It seems that he even offered the skull
as a present to the local people, provided they returned
to their excavation work, suggesting he did not think
too highly of the monetary value of the skull and wanted
more – perhaps gold. Allegedly, they agreed and returned
the following day.
There is another account of the events, which states
that Mitchell-Hedges simply did not have the necessary
courage to deny the local people the skull. If so, in a
reversal of fortune, when he was about to leave the
region, the local high priest approached Mitchell-Hedges
and donated the skull to him, in gratitude for the food,
medicine and clothes Mitchell-Hedges had given to his
people. Irrelevant of what account to believe, in the
end, Mitchell-Hedges left with the skull.
But
did he leave with the skull? Mitchell-Hedges himself
never clearly stated where and how he and his adopted
daughter recovered the skull. He once stated that “how
it came into my possession I have reason for not
revealing”, which makes the mystery even more intriguing
than it already is.
There is doubt he found the skull in Lubantuum.
Mitchell-Hedges did not travel alone: Dr. Thomas Gann
accompanied him and he left, upon his return, an account
of his travels. The publication is intriguing if only
because none of the photographs show Anna, which
suggests she was not even in Lubantuum, as her dad
claims. For sure, travelling in those with a 17-year old
daughter was not customary, but not necessarily
extra-ordinary either, seeing her dad was a famous
explorer. But it is remarkable that Gann’s account does
not mention anything about the discovery of a crystal
skull – a unique artefact, irrelevant of whether they
felt it was highly prized or not.
As a consequence, another argument goes that the family
did not have the skull until 1944, when Mitchell-Hedges
bought the skull in London. Joe Nickell, in Secrets of
the Supernatural, argues that the skull was bought from
Sidney Burney, for 400 pounds. It is known that Burney
had the skull as early as 1936. Nickell also uncovered a
reference in a letter from Burney to the American Museum
of Natural History, dating from 1933. Burney placed it
up for auction in 1943 at Sotheby’s, where the Museum of
Mankind wanted to purchase the object. Burney then
withdrew it from auction and sold it privately to
Mitchell-Hedges – reason unknown. Anna Mitchell-Hedges
has stated that Burney had received the skull from
Mitchell-Hedges as pawn: Mitchell-Hedges was in need of
money to finance yet another expensive expedition.
Burney thus decided to loan him the money, in return for
the skull, which he returned to Mitchell-Hedges when the
latter repaid the loan to him, though only after Burney
had threatened to sell it at auction.
Nickell, however, remains sceptical. Mitchell-Hedges was
a famous adventurer, who published his auto-biography in
1954, entitled Danger My Ally. It is the first time he
speaks about the skull. Throughout the 1930s, in the
various newspaper articles, he never mentions the skull.
Why this silence for more than two decades? It is a
major mystery why he would not mention what was one of
his most intriguing discoveries.
Though Nickell has made clear that the accepted “facts”
about the discovery of the skull are largely invented,
the question remains as to who discovered the skull. It
had to come from somewhere. In the reconstruction of
events, Burney bought it from an Englishman, which is
what he writes in the 1933 letter that Nickell
uncovered, who had it in his possession for several
years. “I did not discover anything more.”
A new series of speculation then ensued. Some now argued
that Mitchell-Hedges had received the skull when he was
initiated into a secret society. He would thus have
invented the story of Anna’s discovery, to explain how
the skull came in his possession, and the Burney story
as well would be an invention. For if he had bought the
skull in 1944, why did he not just say he had bought it?
Confused? You should be… In short, the skull’s origins
are difficult to trace down, but its history since 1944
is well-documented: Anna inherited the skull from her
father upon his death in 1959 and since then, it has
become one of the most spell-binding pieces of alleged
ancient treasure.
In
1964, Anna loaned the skull to Frank and Mabel Dorland,
famous art experts and restorers, whom had known the
family since the 1950s. Anna felt that they were ideal
candidates to make a detailed scientific study of the
object. Dorland commenced this by taking many
photographs, from various angles. He used a binocular
microscope to create a three-dimensional image of the
skull. But apart from scientific analysis, the skull
also seemed to reveal a magical dimension.
One evening, Dorland’s work finished too late for the
skull to be returned to its vault in the Mill Valley
Bank. So Dorland took the skull home, placing it next to
the fire he had lit for the evening. He thus noticed how
the light of the fire was reflected through the eyes of
the skull. This made him realise that the skull allowed
for certain optical effects – though other stories state
that throughout the entire evening, the house was also a
hive of poltergeist activity.
The optical effects were the result of how the skull was
carved, which also enabled Dorland to realise how
precise the workmanship had been. He observed that there
was a type of “layering” on top of the skull, which made
the skull behave like an amplifying glass. The back of
the skull channeled the light through the eye-sockets at
the front of the eye. If no-one would have been able to
see what was happening behind the skull, anyone in front
of the skull would perceive a spectacular series of
images occurring from the front of the skull, which
would appear to originate from within the skull. Dorland
also discovered two holes in the bottom of the skull,
which are invisible when the skull is standing erect.
The holes are used so that the skull can be swung, but
without actually falling over.
In December 1970, Dorland took the skull to the
laboratories of Hewlett-Packard in Santa Clara, at the
time of the world’s most advanced centres for computers
and electronics. The lab technicians were specialists in
the production of precise quartz crystals, which were
used in various high-tech instruments. It meant that
they were perfect for trying to figure out how the skull
could have been made. One test revealed that the skull
was made out of one piece of quartz, with the jawbone
coming from the same piece. The lab stated that they
were unable to create a skull like that with the
technology available to them in 1970. They estimated it
would take them approximately 300 years to create such
an object, suggesting that the skull had been created
over several generations. This is an unlikely scenario
and thus the skull was proposed to be of alien origins –
or from a previous civilisation that was technology
superior to ours, and which quickly got linked with
Atlantis.
But
apart from hypotheses, some further tests occurred in
the early 1980s. Larry LaBarre was one of the initial
testers and a decade later added to his previous
statements that the quartz used was very hard, measuring
a 9 out of a possible 10, meaning that only a diamond
would be able to cut it. The quartz, though of one
piece, was furthermore composed of three or four growth
phases. Each phase had a different axis. This meant that
cutting it, was extremely difficult, as hitting upon a
new axis, often meant that if not careful, the glass
would shatter – one of the main raisons why larger
diamonds are more valuable; it is not solely the stone,
but the workmanship involved as well. As to its origin,
LaBarre suggested Catalaveras County in California.
However, Allan Jobbins, who researched the skulls for
Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World television programme,
felt the likely origin of the crystal was Brazil.
This is about all that is known about the
Mitchell-Hedges skull. It is not much to draw any
conclusions from. But fortunately the skull is not
unique. Two other skulls, made from one piece of
crystal, were found in the 1890s in Mexico by soldiers.
One of these is now in the British Museum in London, the
other is in the Museum of Mankind (Trocadero) Museum in
Paris. Though both are impressive, their execution is
inferior to that of the Mitchell-Hedges skull. The
British skull is on display and a local story has it
that some years ago, museum cleaners refused to work at
night unless the skull was covered by a sheet. The
museum’s display reveals the sketchiest of details; the
museum bought the skull in 1898 for 120 pounds from the
New York jewellers Tiffany’s, who apparently were unable
to show its provenance. There are some parallels with
the Mitchell-Hedges problematic provenance. There are
other skulls in circulation, showing that in format, the
Mitchell-Hedges stone is not unique, though equally
showing that of all skulls, Mitchell-Hedges outshines
all.
In recent years, controversy has raged around the
creation of the skulls themselves. With so many unknown
provenances, these are legitimate questions. An analysis
of the British Museum skull revealed traces of wheel
markings on the teeth, which many interpreted as likely
to be the result of “European technology” used in its
creation. It suggested the skulls were recently made and
then passed off as ancient. But the problem remains that
the time required to create these – costs – would far
outweigh the price they made at auction.
Other skulls, including one owned by Norma Redo who is
notorious as the skull supports a large cross on top,
showed similar “evidence” of wheels. Still, Dr. Andrew
Rankin in his analysis of this skull argued that this
now deemed to be modern skull was from the same crystal
of that of the crystal goblet from tomb no. 7 at Monte
Alban – which is an uncontested archaeological find.
Furthermore, the 1571 hallmark on the crucifix on top of
the skull is also deemed to be genuine, thus in general
excluding the likelihood that the skulls are of modern
European origin.
Thus there is one likely – logical – conclusion, which
is that the skulls come from somewhere in Middle or
Southern America, but their discovery predates
Mitchell-Hedges. In fact, it suggests that certain
people acquired these skulls through “some” means that
cannot see the light of day, and that they some time
later ended up at auction, largely erasing the
traceability of their origin.
What purpose did the skull serve – assuming they are
archaeological treasures? Mitchell-Hedges believed that
the skull was the “skull of death”. He believed that if
a Mayan priest held the skull, while killing someone in
his thoughts, the person would die. He also believed
that those not convinced of the power of the skull,
would equally die.
Many modern people have used the skulls for scrying.
Many have reported they had visions, often scenes from
an ancient or foreign civilisation. The scenes
witnessed, however, grossly vary. Some have reported
scenes from Mayan history, others have reported they
received knowledge from Atlantis – in line with the
original theory offered by Mitchell-Hedges regarding the
origins of the stone.
In the Mayan world, the symbol of the skull was
important. There are stone skulls throughout the ancient
Mayan kingdom. One such skull stands at the Temple of
the Inscriptions in Palenque, another in Tikal. Both
skulls are carved at the top of a row of steps leading
into a room that seems to have been a shrine. A stone
skull is also found at the entrance to the cave beneath
the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan. But most skulls
can be seen on the skull platform, tzompantli, or “Place
of the Skull” at Chichen Itza. All sacred centres,
including Lubantuum, had a “Place of the Skull”, which
formed part of the sacred layout, as it was a three
dimensional rendering of the Mayan creation myth. This
myth states that when playing ball, the Twin Maize Gods
disturbed the lords of Xibalba, the Maya underworld. The
Xibalbans summoned the Maize Gods to the underworld to
answer for their disrespectful behaviour, where they
were subjected to a series of trials. When they failed
these tests, they were killed and buried in the Ball
court of Xibalba. The eldest twin was decapitated; his
head hung in the tree next to the ball court, as a
warning to anyone who might repeat their offence. Later
and despite this warning, the daughter of a Xibalban
lord went to visit the skull, which spoke to her,
spitting in her hand and thus making her pregnant.
This story has clear parallels to the powers of the
crystal skulls, which were also used by Mayan priests.
If the skulls are ancient tools that were used by the
Mayan priests, the Mayan creation myth offers a
distinctive possibility that the crystal skulls may have
been made to serve a specific purpose: recreate the
creation myth. We should note that the Mitchell-Hedges
skull even has a detachable jaw, and that it could thus
be made to speak, like the skull in the creation myth.
And what spectacle it would have been, if a fire was lit
behind the skull, which would make it look as if the
fire from the underworld eyes. Anyone witnessing such a
spectacle must have left the scene impressed.
It is therefore intriguing to note that the Mayan
creation myth goes in hand with Mitchell-Hedges
explanation of the skull: “It is at least 2600 years old
and according to legend was used by the high priest of
the Maya when performing esoteric rites.” One of the
tasks of the Mayan high priests was, of course, to
“perform” the creation myth. The date of 2600 years
would place the skull’s creation in ca. 600 BC, which is
predating the Mayan culture, but I would argue that a
precise date of manufacture is not the most important
problem facing these skulls. As to the Atlantean
connection, that for the moment, will remain unproveable.
This article appeared in Frontier Magazine 1.3 (1995)
and has been adapted.
There
are two types of crystal skulls: one type is of ancient
origin, the others are modern fabrications. The latter
are made across the world, from Mexico, Brazil, Germany
to Nepal, and are often on sale in New age-type shops.
They may look good and cost a lot of money, but in
themselves, they are not something to become overly
excited about. The archaeological skulls have so far
only been found in the ruins of Mexico and Central
America, though there are unconfirmed rumours that some
skulls have been found in South America. 
Platform
of the Skull, Chichen Itza